Brian Wilson: Why Keir Starmer should stay as Prime Minister

At what point does the messianic belief that he or she should be anointed to deliver where the incumbent has failed manifest itself? How long has the plotting been going on before a strategy emerges – and how can loyalty be sought when first it has been betrayed?

It is usually individuals who have the immense privilege of already being in great jobs, with the real opportunity to lead change, who can’t wait to move to a higher calling. That in itself comes close to being a disqualification. Why not just fulfil the commitment to roles already held?

The current aspirants to the crown are cases in point. Wes Streeting, by all accounts, has been doing a good job in turning around the NHS in England – a great and necessary task in a Labour government, which Scotland could usefully learn from. Now he has walked away from it. Why?

READ MORE: Why Labour leadership crisis is an insult to voters

If and when a vacancy occurs, a record of success with the NHS would have been a huge plus on Streeting’s CV. But a vacancy does not exist, so why subordinate the interests of the NHS to personal ambition? Aneurin Bevin did not need to be Prime Minister to be better remembered than many who were.

Andy Burnham’s claim is even more fraught with difficulty. He was re-elected as Mayor of Greater Manchester in 2024 and has a couple of years to go. His credentials after three terms will make him a strong leadership contender if he returns as an MP.

Until then, he should live with his past decisions. Burnham could have walked back into the House of Commons in 2024. He chose not to. Appearing now as the returning saviour isn’t credible and the good burghers of Makerfield might see it that way too, when an unasked-for by-election is imposed upon them.

It takes a lot of self-regard to embark upon a course which carries not only a lot of personal risk but also threatens to cause huge damage to the Labour party (and Manchester). Claiming that this is all worthwhile for the greater good of the government and country doesn’t really cut it.

READ MORE: How the Kirk Moderator reminded politicians what their job is actually about

One could go through the list of those waiting in the wings without finding any contender whose name is being shouted in the streets as the best Prime Minister in waiting. Until that happens, it is as well to stick with the one we’ve got while proclaiming what the Labour government is delivering, which is actually quite a lot.

I am no unqualified admirer of Keir Starmer, as any regular reader of this column will be aware. I hold him and his politically inept advisers largely responsible for the current state of the Labour party, not least in Scotland. But that ship has sailed and I am no fan either of a coup to replace Starmer as Prime Minister.

There is an established route to becoming Prime Minister which has only recently ceased to be the norm. First, you become the democratically elected leader in opposition. Second, you deliver a general election victory. At that point, a mandate exists for the lifetime of a parliament.

Short-cuts which supercede that mandate used to be rarities. Eden after Suez. Wilson for health reasons. Thatcher in Tory extremis. There has never been an involuntary ejection of a Labour Prime Minister. The Tories changed all this in recent years, and not in a good way; and certainly not one to emulate.

If there is to be a change of Prime Minister, it should be at a point where the incumbent recognises the force of the mood against him. The only recent example of a Prime Minister ‘making way’, perhaps against his own better judgement, gave us Gordon Brown in place of Tony Blair, and that didn’t go well.

READ MORE: The hopeful signs that mean a new Prime Minister could turn Labour's flagging fortunes around

At this point, Starmer needs support from those around him – not the duplicity of resignations in an effort to force a contest when there is absolutely no consensus about who, if any of them, might do better. All a contest would produce is chaos and that is the last thing either Labour or the country needs.

And what of the Scottish dimension? Earlier this year, Anas Sarwar called for Starmer’s resignation but, frankly, the aim was not removal but distancing; a necessary tactic since the baggage which the Labour government’s early mis-steps had bequeathed were effectively killing off any chance of Labour doing well in Scotland. That didn’t work either and there is no doubt that Starmer, fairly or unfairly, continues to be an electoral liability in Scotland as much as in England.

If that is still the case as the general election approaches, then the case for a change will grow and by then a natural successor may have emerged. In these circumstances, the prospects for a dignified transition rather than a coup based on plotting and scheming would be much more likely, and productive.

But who knows? Two years is an eternity in politics. Maybe by then, NHS waiting lists in England will continue to fall (as they did this week). Maybe, the economy will continue to grow beyond expectations (as it did this week). Maybe the impact of Labour policies will be earning plaudits in areas like child poverty (already down by over 400,000 in two years). Maybe Starmer will get the credit he deserves for keeping us out of Trump’s wars.

If none of this is happening, then I’m pretty sure events will take their own course. But these events should not be driven now by a premature contest created by individuals who may well have an inflated idea of their own alternative appeal.